I've been reading "Destroyers of WW2" lately, and devising some FT\FB1
destroyers derived from WW2 prototypes. The Fleet Book designs are in a
more post-WW2 "DD\CL" style, and WW2-derived ships are more in the
"eggshell with hammer" style. They also tend to be a bit on the big side for
FT destroyers, to allow a bit more differentiation. The flush decker version1
is horribly vulnerable, and "Shimakaze" is just a monster, but I think the
others are quite usable, especially the J/K/N and the Akizuki.
Rob Paul
British-type fleet destroyer (e.g. J/K/N class) 113 points
Mass 35 Hull Integrity-7
(weak)
Thrust-5
FTL 1 Fire Control System
3 Class-2 batteries, 3-arc
2 Salvo Missile Rack, Medium Range 1 PDS
British V&W AA destroyer 80 points
Mass 23 Hull Integrity-7
(weak)
Thrust-5
FTL 1 Fire Control System 1 ADFC
2 Class-1 batteries, 6-arc
3 PDS
USN Fletcher-class Destroyer 149 points
Mass 43 Hull Integrity-9
(weak)
Thrust-6
FTL 1 Fire Control System 1 ADFC
1 Class-2 battery, 3-arc
1 Class-1 battery, 6-arc
2 Salvo Missile Rack, Medium Range 3 PDS
USN Flush-deck Destroyer (Wickes\Clemson) v.1 111 points
Mass 31 Hull Integrity-3
(fragile)
Thrust-5
FTL 1 Fire Control System
2 Class-1 batteries, 6-arc
2 Salvo Missile Launchers
2 Mass-4 Salvo Missile magazines (8 mass total)
USN Flush-deck Destroyer (Wickes\Clemson) v.2 112 points
Mass 32 Hull Integrity-6
(weak)
Thrust-5
FTL 1 Fire Control System
2 Class-1 batteries, 6-arc
12 Submunition Packs
IJN Shimakaze superdestroyer 168 points
Mass 48 Hull Integrity-5
(fragile)
Thrust-6
FTL 1 Fire Control System
3 Class-2 batteries, 3-arc
3 Salvo Missile Racks, Extended Range 1 PDS
Armour-1
IJN Akizuki class destroyer 120 points
Mass 34 Hull Integrity-7
(weak)
Thrust-5
FTL 1 Fire Control System 1 ADFC
4 Class-1 batteries, 6-arc
1 Salvo Missile Rack, Medium Range 4 PDS
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 02:04:29 +0100, "Robin Paul" <Robin.Paul@tesco.net>
wrote:
> They also tend to be a bit on the big side for FT
When I created my Full Steam rules for the Russo-Japanese War, I ended
up making destroyers (actually torpedo boat destroyers, where the name came
from) the equivalent to fighters. They had essentially one hull box. FT style
destroyers are pretty big compared to battleships. Mind you, for Full Steam I
don't have anything as big as a superdreadnought.
I've also been looking at WWII destroyers (mostly in old JANE'S). I like some
of your designs, here, but I think that the FT SMPs simulate
destroyer-launched torpedos better than SLMs.
The thing that keeps killing me when trying to transfer real-world 20th
Century designs to FT is firing arcs. The main batteries on most
post-dreadnought ships have 5 arcs (either no F, or no A arc), which is
REALLY expensive in FT terms, and tends to cause such ships to lose out to
ships carrying far more weaponry in more restricted arcs. I am particularly
disturbed when I hear about designs that use so-called "off-set" weapons
--
where all weapons bear on the F, FP, AP arcs (or the starboard equivalent) or
even only on the FP arc, and depend on rolling the ship to bring all weapons
to bear.
Actual naval designs have always had to deal with trade-offs of weight,
firing arc, and symmetry (since putting all the guns on the same side would
quickly capsize you). Sometimes this has led to wedding cakes, sometimes to
broadside batteries (and could again, as in the Honor Harrington books).
Have any of you experimented with restricting the number/kind of weapons
on a single arc?
[quoted original message omitted]
> ships carrying far more weaponry in more restricted arcs. I am
weapons --
> where all weapons bear on the F, FP, AP arcs (or the starboard
Of course, to make that effective you have to have the extra thrust available
to turn AND roll when you need to. If you want a fast ship anyway, then offset
arcs are great.
My problem comes when I try to imagine what such ships would actually look
like. It seems like such a setup would create great imbalances in hull
integrity and vulnerability to damage from side to side.
Maybe it's just me. I always figured that ships of the line should look like
WWII warships rotated around their axis 360 degrees with the engines stuck on
the back, and that dedicated assault ships or raiders should have
primarily forward-aimed weaponry.
[quoted original message omitted]
> My problem comes when I try to imagine what such ships would actually
Most warships have all their guns on one side of a ship--the top.
Fair enough.:)
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Tue, 29 August 2000, "Jarrard, Jonathan (J.)" wrote:
> The thing that keeps killing me when trying to transfer real-world
You have to remember that modern naval ships HAVE to be essentially long and
pointy. It's because they have to push through water. You have to have a
pointy prow, and you have to have as small a surface area on the front of your
ship as possible.
Note that this constraint alone limits the number of main guns firing out the
front of a ship to about 3 or 4 guns in between 1 and three turrets, stacked
behind and above each other. Secondary guns, by contrast, were usually only
good for two fire arcs. The reason: they were mounted on the sides of the
ship, the only area that could hold them as the rest of the ship was already
taken up with the main guns, superstructure, and machinery. Those main gun
turrets, too, are incredibly expensive in terms of weight. However, naval
vessels can't simply roll along their axis to bring guns on the port side to
bear on the starboard side. They can't move in a direction other than the
direction the ship is facing. Those big hefty turrets are necessary for giving
a ship with minimal manoeuvrability the most options.
In space, you're not pushing through a volume. If you want maximum surface
area for minimum volume, you build a sphere. For that matter, if you want
maximum firepower in your line of motion, you build a
pill-shaped ship with the "front" being the "side" of the pill. You
won't be able to, physically, mount a lot of weapons that cover all fire arcs,
but then you probably don't care. You simply spin to bring all weapons to
bear.
Modern naval ships are NOT the best design for space, and should come out the
worst for wear in Full Thrust.
> Have any of you experimented with restricting the number/kind of
I have, but only because I was creating my own ships and wanted them long and
pointy for a game universe I was using.
***
Most warships have all their guns on one side of a ship--the top.
***
But not Aeronef! ;->=
Actually, several pre-WWII battleships had below-waterline torpedo
tubes, I hope an acceptable stretch of the term 'guns'.
***
Modern naval ships are NOT the best design for space, and should come out the
worst for wear in Full Thrust.
***
Well, most current space vehicles are indeed designed like naval ships, long
and pointy, but that's mostly due to the time getting TO space. I'm just not
sure that at some point, long and somewhat pointy hulls for high thrust
vehicles might not still be the most effective, perhaps to keep the weight
centered on the thrust line.
Can't effectively argue: not an engineer. Just a gut feeling.
Everyone seems to take parts of the naval analogy, just different parts.
Dangers of generlizing and all that.
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
In most cases it a reasonable trade off when you look at arcs vs. maneuver
at least in cinematic. For a while speed 2 FX + RX ships were the bane
of existence. However the things a slow ship gives up are the ability to
control range and dodge missles, fighters etc.
Andy A
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Tue, 29 August 2000, devans@uneb.edu wrote:
> I'm
The problem with a pointy ship is that it would take more force to spin it
around and to stop it spinning than if it was round. The old conservation of
angular momentum thing comes into play. A long pointy ship will simply NOT
spin as quickly as a round ship. On the other hand,
the trade-off is that it should be able to roll on its axis faster than
a round ship.
My guess is that short and squat ships would end up being the basic shape, but
that you might see different weirdly shaped ships in a "combined arms" style
fleet.
> On Tue, 29 August 2000, devans@uneb.edu wrote:
> The problem with a pointy ship is that it would take more force to
Why not? With nothing resisting it, a long pointy ship could put its thrusters
further out from the center of gravity without having to give up that much in
terms of total mass to spin. I'd think that, if anything, a long pointy ship
would spin faster than a round one on account of simple leverage of thrust.
On the other hand, I'm no great hand at physics, so it could be that I've
simply got a bad case of cranio-rectal inversion here, too...
[quoted original message omitted]
Sorry, but this is getting into the realm of religious disagreements, I fear.
One of the reasons I remain in the cinematic camp is I just don't see
large ships doing the snap roll or spin. Even in B5 the non-gravitic
ships take some time to do the rotation. Oh, I know there'll be statements
that the time is not a significant part of the move, but that just doesn't
feel right to me.
Part of it's a matter of dignity, I suspect. Spinning and twirling just
doesn't seem 'right' to me for anything larger than fighters. That part's
just not going to fall to a well-reasoned argument.
Same sort of thing as my reaction to unlimited speed and floating boards. Oh,
I know restrictions seem arbitrary, but the FTII movement sure seems closer to
realistic physics at slower speeds. At some point, the faster your ship goes,
an increase of speed starts losing significance, and the directional change
increases.
The tight 'furballs' I've experienced, to my demise more often than not,
harkens back to a little game I tried to put together I called 'Battlepass'.
The theory, and it's one I've heard more than once, is that space battle will
be preceded by long periods of jockeying for position, followed by short
periods of insane, chaotic battling. Cognitive dissonance allows me to forget
that the short battling is due to the tremendous
opposing vectors involved in the passing. ;->=
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
Battlepass? Was it an intersting game? Was it a variation of FT? Is it still
possible to get a copy?
An inquiring mind wants to know!
[hehehe I couldn't resist that last one...:-) ]
Donald Hosford
<Snippage!>
> The tight 'furballs' I've experienced, to my demise more often than
Sounds interesting...But FT/MT/ect. ect. doesn't take into account the
shape of a ship. Hence the "generic" maneuver system.
Hmmm...there's a thought:
An optional hull/maneuver system.
Have the player choose the general shape of the hull. Choice A: Generic. The
current system without changes. Basicly any hull that doesn't fall into the
other types. Choice B: Long and pointy. Basicly any hull that is 2 or more
times longer than it is wide. Assuming that the mass of the ship is more or
less evenly distributed throughtout the hull. This puts a good deal of the
ship's mass far from it's center. Thus it will need more thrusters per
maneuver point. Big
advantage: Can have some really great broadsides/fighter launch
bays...Roll maneuvers would be easier for this type than other types. (all of
it's mass is very close to the long axis.)
Choice C: Round. Basicly any design that is compact/bulky. All of the
ship's mass will be close to it's center of mass. This would allow the ship to
have slightly less thrusters per maneuver point compaired to Choice B above.
All maneuvers would cost the same. Choice D:??? any ideas?
Hull choice shouldn't affect hull cost per mass. (Not sure about this
one.)
Regardless of the shape of the ship, anyone should be able to add more
thrusters to make the ship more maneuverable. Thus a Choice B design could
turn as easily as a Choice C, but it would have to give up more space for the
thrusters...
Any ideas anyone?
Donald Hosford
> "Robert W. Hofrichter" wrote:
<Snippage!>
> For a given amount of thrust, the long, pointy vessel will not spin as
Gee, this sounds like the return of the old LENSMAN and STELLAR CONQUEST ship
shapes (long thin scouts, globular DNs).
[quoted original message omitted]
> Robin Paul wrote:
> British-type fleet destroyer (e.g. J/K/N class) 113 points
Mass is 36, cost is 125
> British V&W AA destroyer 80
No, Average.
Otherwise they look OK.
> Hmmm...there's a thought:
Big
> advantage: Can have some really great broadsides/fighter launch
All
> maneuvers would cost the same.
Traveler had some variations--Book 5/High Guard, I think? There were
combinations of basic shape and streamlining. One was, I think, "extended"
structure, which I always visualized as a Tinkertoy framework with modules
stuck on where convenient. It would be lousy at maneuver but cheap to build.
> "Jarrard, Jonathan (J.)" wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 12:40:19PM -0400, Chris DeBoe wrote:
Yes, but why would you take anything but the flattened
sphere? If I remember, that gave you streamlining _and_ a mass/cost
savings.
Well, if I ever find my copy of High Guard (and Trillion Credit
Squadron)....
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 12:40:19PM -0400, Chris DeBoe wrote: